Linked-In for Conversation?

Last week's post on how Twitter could monetize by providing its services as a medium of Intranet Communication brought some interesting responses. Not directly on the particular post, but an excellent array of answers from some very smart people all the same, albeit not on the medium that I expected: LinkedIn.
As a follow-up and to showcase these answers, I thought I'd post the responses to the Question which I posted on LinkedIn a week back: "Would you consider using Twitter for Intranet Communication?"

Note: Some scrolling may be required. Blogger's Wysiwig editors aren't quite as perfect, but they did to an impressive job of copying most of the content from LinkedIn correctly nevertheless. Kudos to Evan Williams, Pyra Labs and Google.

Would you consider using Twitter for Intranet Communication? Clarification added: The question here is with reference to this article: http://retwt.me/OebZ It concerns the use of a medium such as Twitter, and whether it can be utilized for faster Intranet Communication, provision of short-burst updates to anyone and everyone within a company if necessary, something which would Highly increase Efficiency in an environment with rapidly changing requirements. Clarification added: Adding another little idea based upon the answers. If not publicly, would an independent deployment of Twitter, as discussed in the aforementioned article, on your own company's server, which is perfectly private and which can be tweaked, be more acceptable? posted 6 days ago in Project Management, Telecommunications Good Answers (8) Keith M Experienced and versatile Telecoms/OSS Consultant see all my answers Best Answers in:Telecommunications (26)...  This was selected as Best Answer Bear in mind Twitter isn't all the special or unique as a technology platform. If it is "special" in any way it is because of its viral nature. A viral nature isn't really that beneficial in the app you describe as you can, to a degree, mandate usage of whichever application you prefer. The main advantage of Twitter would be that some may already use it, and you can leverage the existing application support on mobile platforms. Other options which make sense for this sort of application include Google Reader, RSS, and Jabber. I would also question the need for such an application. I think there is a trend for people to be obsessed with "real-time" communications for the sake of it, not because there is a real need or requirement to fill. This sort of irrational obsession is what has driven tools like Blackberry. Real-time messaging can be useful for a small subset of applications (share trading, monitoring apps, etc.) where the necessity for fast communications is a key part of the application, but it is totally unnecessary for most of the usage people promote it for, including email (where the "real-time" aspect of push-email systems is often a marketing illusion anyway). In fact this sort of real-time messaging can be immensely disruptive (in a bad way) as very often distracts people from being productive. Robert M Information Technology and Services Professional see all my answers The whole world can see twitter - I wouldn't want my internal stuff broadcast in this way. You could have a look at 37signals - they have some interesting collaboration tools: Basecamp; Highrise; Backpack; Campfire; Whiteboard. Subscription-based so low-risk to try. Links: http://37signals.com/ Clarification added: There's also Google Wave in beta Simon Cornelius P. U Code Ninja see all my answers It depends. If you want publicity, then communicating using a public medium is desirable because it piques people's interest. People will follow you because they want to be in the know. Otherwise, you're better off using internal IRC, e-mail, or other (secure) IM protocols. Clarification added: To answer your second question, my answer would be no. Twitter is just a web app that reinvents existing technologies for enabling real-time communication. Other mature protocols are suitable for this. Tom O New Business Manager at www.skive.co.uk see all my answers This is a "try it and see situation" and wont suit everyone, it's not a topic for discussion but one for trial. The privacy issue could be easily solved with private profiles. And yammer are already making a business out of this and have been for a while. Links: http://www.yammer.com/ http://www.ale2.co.uk Rob M Senior Technical Project Manager at AT&T Government Solutions see all my answers Best Answers in:Advertising (1)...  I don't think so. In a business context immediate communication is usually two-way. Someone needs something from another person. Twitter is more of an asynchronous "This is what I am doing now" type of platform. Not sure how helpful this can be in the context you describe. Best, Rob Erica F Social Media Optimizer, Publisher at ALC Publishing, President of Yuricon see all my answers Best Answers in:Blogging (16)...  I would suggest something like Yammer or Ning for an Intranet social network. These are closed spaces that can be controlled by an administrator for your organization. Yammer has a desktop client and runs on phones, as well, so it is like a Twitter for your company only. Cheers, Erica Friedman Yurikon LLC Social Media Without Delusion http://socialoptimized.blogspot.com http://www.visualcv.com/elfriedman Chris C Optimizing Security Operations see all my answers Best Answers in:Using LinkedIn (9)...  If more people adopted Twitter's brevity in email, we wouldn't need to consider a new tool to improve communication. Ken Davis' Business Writing and Communication: Manage Your Writing should be required reading. I also recommend Seth Godin's short but relevent blog post on writing simplicity. Short simple sentences spread ideas farther and faster. That's why Twitter works. Links: http://www.amazon.com/McGraw-Hill-36-Hour-Business-Writing-Communication/dp... http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/10/the-secret-of-w.html http://www.manageyourwriting.com/ Daniel K IT Consultant at Baker Security & Networks see all my answers I think a much more comprehensive set of tools would be Google Apps/Google Chat. Google Sites makes adding content to an Intranet child's play and means that responsibility for content can be handed off to individual staff members or departments. Google Docs makes collaboration on documents so much easier to control. Google Chat allows for the instantaneous communication, be it one-on-one or one-to-many

The answers were impressive, and literally shot down almost every aspect of my idea of using Twitter as an Intranet Communication, and the fact that Twitter might actually make money out of such a service. I agree with some of it, and I hadn't been aware of the services that Yammer provides, but then again, as Tom put it so well, its more of a "try it and see situation". If it works, it works. The whole point of using Twitter and not anything else had simply been because of the fact that its catching up and people are adapting it fast. Whether the trend dies down, as Gartner's Hype Cycle usually predicts, is of course, plausible. But nevertheless, its worth a shot, if not for all companies, then for those who might actually require this kind of dynamic conversation.
For it not being able to facilitate a Two-Way Communication, that's an excellent point, and I still can't think of a loophole for that point. But in spite of that, Twitter conversations aren't uncommon though, are they?

So what about LinkedIn?
Last of all, I would like to say a big Thank You to everyone who posted their views. I truly appreciate it. LinkedIn might just be the perfect way of getting instant professional feedback, and that also from the very best, in such a manner. Perhaps allowing users to add more elements to the Questions which they post, other than just Links, might be something to think about. Make it slightly more like Facebook, but not completely. Add Link Previews, that helps a lot. There are many ways of going about it.

Read More »

Twitter Monetization: A Wordpress in disguise?

Let’s take a step back and reexamine Twitter’s monetization efforts. On 20th May @Biz talked about something to the tune of “to say we are philosophically opposed to any and all advertising is incorrect.” Subsequently, there was a bit more subtlety when he reiterated that “in the Terms, we leave the door open for advertising. We'd like to keep our options open as we've said before.” Translated, that just means: “We’re afraid we might alienate everyone by putting advertisements on Twitter right now, so we’ll just wait till we’re big like Facebook and everyone’s relying too much on us. THEN we’ll bring in the multicolored banners.” Then of course, we hear of that brilliant deal with Microsoft and Google, which still raises eyebrows considering they’re selling to competitors, but heck, it works for them.

Two Search Engines. Two deals. What’s next for them? Another monetization plan besides the uncertain advertisements mentioned above? Or something even more? Why not sell the technology to big CEO’s with bigger bucks. Make Twitter a medium of Intranet Communication. Might not be such a bad idea after all.

Let’s have a look at Wordpress now. Agreed, it’s Macro-blogging. Or for the sake of frivolity, blogging. Now Wordpress allows people to host their blogs using a subdomain. This itself sounds quite similar to what Twitter does: you create an account, you choose a name, you get your own Twitter page to micro-blog. Now Wordpress, being a Content Management System, also allows you some additional nifty features: changing themes, changing styles, adding cool widgets etc. etc. The works. More importantly however, it allows you to do this in two ways. You pay up and get more hosting space, more features, and more operating functions. Or, you download it and make an independent installation of it, whether on your server, a local host, a public website, or perhaps on your intranet. Download and deploy.

So how exactly does this concern Twitter then?
The idea is simple, and I’ve tried to paint a picture which I’m hoping is obvious to grab. Sell the technology. Sell the platform. Not just the API, that’s available for free and dead useful at that. But seeing the number of Fail-Whales we’ve encountered over the past few months, the suave managers of big conglomerates might not be too happy with the idea of trusting their entire communication channel with an independent website which has a tendency to regularly go down. It’s an impressive way of communication, and it could be a brilliant solution to Intranet communication – real time updates, researcher collaborations, project updates, dynamic communication of changing requirements etc. etc. And it could be monitored perfectly well, analyzed even better. The possibilities are limitless. But running it on a server that’s not in my control? I’d rather pay developers to create something similar. It might not be perfect, but it could definitely serve the purpose. Right?

Cashing in on this unseen opportunity is the key, and the revenue-stream automatically defined. It won’t hurt Twitter either, they already have everything. Only instead of giving it away for free, much like Wordpress does, just sell it. The price can be varied along with the bundled features: a Basic Installation, Advanced Analytics, and an Enterprise-level Communication System. It’s all there. Heck, even charge for maintenance and stay on in advisory basis. 

All Twitter needs to do is open its eyes to this Easter egg. What would you say?

Read More »

SSO: What Google should've done and Facebook just did

In times of yore, when Microsoft was bright and AOL was 18, every giant-ish organization was trying to dominate on the one thing it couldn’t possibly control: the Internet. In attempts to create a single-sign on web, the Liberty Alliance Project was established by Sun Microsystems, to provide “a common language for authentication”, and ensure that “no one company controlled the single authentication network”. While considered a bit of a hype after its time and definitely something to be reckoned with at this point of time (Read: Facebook Connect), it still had interesting historic implications, which are, fortunately or unfortunately, now getting reflected upon the two biggest Internet giants today: Google and Facebook.

Joined by AOL, United Airlines, GM, and a charming variety of other mainstream businesses, the Liberty Alliance Project was heavily hyped  and surrounded by much speculation. While Microsoft was stressing upon its ‘Passport’ Services, a similar initiative (perhaps not technically, but similar all the same), AOL began its own separate project called ‘Magic Carpet’. While they naturally garnered enough support to be reckoned with, being spun off by sufficiently well-known brands of the time, the reason which later led to their diminishing visibility was the apparent lack of need for a single authentication system, as research seemed to suggest.

Later, of course, came Google. Vastly viral and tremendously used for Search, it started picking on enough Google ID’s once it rolled out Gmail, even allowing users to sign in to the Google website with their ID’s, and steadily getting tied in with additional applications and services – iGoogle, Docs, Labs, Calendars, etc. etc. – all of which could be accessed using that one single login ID provided by the ‘Don’t be Evil’ company. The numbers continue to grow, and Gmail ID’s runs strong, with almost 146 million users in roughly 5 years.

Further down came Facebook. With roughly 300 million users, it managed to reach a number equal to the population of United States itself - all in a period of 5 years. While the numbers themselves are staggering, more important of course is how the creators have now utilized them – not just for the revenues, which is a given – but, with a powerful little feature which they rolled out last December: Facebook Connect. By clicking on a single button, you can, literally, sign in to practically any website with a Connect installation in it. Add comments, posts reviews, share it to your wall, show it off to your friends – it’s all there. A perfect way of connecting to everything, using Facebook.

The point here is simple. Google could have done precisely the same thing with much less effort - and have been much more dominant. It was already growing, and still is – heavily so. Connecting itself to practically every website had always been an easy option for it: Tie in the users to the Search results, and watch the numbers grow. Every website would want to opt in for a “Google Connect” instead. Ensuring the viral spread of Wave wouldn't have been that daunting a task perhaps. Google Checkout could have become a matter of drag-and-drop. What other advantages it might have offered later and what it didn’t at that point of time is beyond question: Google has always done things which for the most part have never quite profited it, and this is one missed opportunity that it might just regret.

Of course, they rolled out the Google Friend Connect before Facebook Connect, an initiative I think may be a little too late in making Google more 'social' (coupled with Google Profiles – I’m sufficiently sure they remain vastly ignored.) Add to that the Google Side-Wiki, which is, for now, slightly invisible, though which I’m hoping will eventually surface. But it’s still too much of a knee-jerk reaction to be too noticeable.

It’s a simple race, and I’m personally betting on Facebook winning this one. Then again, which one would YOU prefer: the familiar Facebook, or your charming pal Google?

Read More »